Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Acquisition of Lands and Establishment of Airspace Contiguous to the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA, 64604-64606 [E8-25845]
Download as PDF
64604
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 211 / Thursday, October 30, 2008 / Notices
mailed to the USPTO, for a total postage
cost of approximately $107,453 per year.
The recordkeeping costs for this
collection are associated with
submitting maintenance fee payments,
forms, and petitions online through the
USPTO Web site. It is recommended
that customers who submit fee
payments and documents online print
and retain a copy of the
acknowledgment receipt as evidence of
the successful transaction. The USPTO
estimates that it will take 5 seconds
(0.001 hours) to print a copy of the
acknowledgment receipt and that
approximately 214,556 maintenance fee
payments, forms, and petitions will be
submitted online, for a total of 215
hours per year for printing this receipt.
Using the paraprofessional rate of $100
per hour, the USPTO estimates that the
recordkeeping cost associated with this
collection will be approximately
$21,500 per year.
The total non-hour respondent cost
burden for this collection in the form of
filing fees, postage costs, and
recordkeeping costs is estimated to be
$614,571,323 per year.
IV. Request for Comments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, e.g., the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: October 24, 2008.
Susan K. Fawcett,
Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief
Information Officer, Customer Information
Services Group, Public Information Services
Division.
[FR Doc. E8–25886 Filed 10–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–16–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Oct 29, 2008
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Acquisition of Lands and
Establishment of Airspace Contiguous
to the Marine Corps Air Ground
Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section (102)(2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)), as
implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality Regulations (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), the Department
of the Navy announces its intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to study alternatives for
meeting Marine Corps Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) sustained,
combined arms, live-fire and maneuver
training requirements. The proposed
action is to request the withdrawal of
federal public lands, acquire state and
privately owned lands, and to seek the
establishment of Special Use Airspace
with the effect of expanding the Marine
Corps Air Ground Combat Center
(MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms,
California. The Department of the Navy
will prepare the EIS in cooperation with
the Bureau of Land Management and
Federal Aviation Administration.
DATES: All written, oral, or telephonic
comments regarding the scope of issues
that the Department of the Navy should
consider during EIS preparation must be
received before January 31, 2009. Three
public scoping meetings have been
scheduled and the meeting locations are
as follows:
1. December 3, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
Twentynine Palms, CA;
2. December 4, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
Victorville, CA;
3. December 5, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.,
Ontario, CA.
ADDRESSES: Written comments or
requests for inclusion on the EIS
mailing list may be submitted to Project
Manager (Attn: Mr. Joseph Ross), Box
788104, Bldg 1554, Rm 138, MAGTFTC/
MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms, CA
92278–8104. Public meeting locations
are as follows:
1. Twentynine Palms Junior High
School, Hay’s Gym, 5798 Utah Trail,
Twentynine Palms, CA;
2. Hilton Garden Inn Victorville,
12603 Mariposa Road, Victorville, CA;
3. Convention Center, 2000 E.
Convention Center Way, Ontario, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Project Manager (Attn: Mr. Joseph Ross),
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Box 788104, Bldg 1554, Rm 138,
MAGTFTC/MCAGCC, Twentynine
Palms, CA 92278–8104; phone: 760–
830–3764; e-mail:
SMBPLMSWEBPAO@usmc.mil.
Each of
the three scoping meetings will consist
of an informal, open house session with
information stations staffed by Marine
Corps representatives. Public comment
forms will be available and gathered at
the information stations, and a
stenographer will be available to take
oral comments for inclusion in the
record. Details of the meeting locations
will be announced in local newspapers.
Additional information concerning
meeting times and the proposed
alternatives will be available on the EIS
Web site located at https://
www.29palms.usmc.mil/las.
The meetings are designed to solicit
input from agencies and the affected
public regarding issues or interests that
should be studied or the reasonable
alternatives that should be considered
for study to meet Marine Corps Marine
Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) sustained,
combined arms, live-fire and maneuver
training requirements. The public is
welcome to comment orally or by
written comment forms at the meeting;
or, by sending a letter to Mr. Joe Ross,
Project Manager, 29Palms Proposed
Training Land/Airspace Acquisition
Project, MAGTFTC/MCAGCC, Bldg
1554, Box 788104, Twentynine Palms,
CA 92278–8104; by an e-mail to
SMBPLMSWEBPAO@usmc.mil; or by
voice mail at 760–830–3764.
The EIS will consider alternatives for
the proposed acquisition of training
land and accompanying Special Use
Airspace sufficient to meet the training
requirements for three MEB battalions,
as a Ground Combat Element, and a
correspondingly sized Air Combat
Element to simultaneously maneuver for
48–72 hours, using combined-arms and
live fire with their supporting Logistics
Combat Element and Command
Element. To meet MEB training
requirements which utilize weapons
systems and platforms currently and
foreseeable in the Marine Corps
inventory, more contiguous military
range land and airspace than is now
available for training anywhere in the
United States would be required.
The requirement for MEB training
reflects a shift in doctrine that emerged
in the 1990s that placed the MEB as the
premier fighting force that would be
deployed to world crises in the
foreseeable future. The Marine Corps
studied locations nationwide that might
meet the training requirements and
concluded that the Southwest Region
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 211 / Thursday, October 30, 2008 / Notices
range complex is the best location to
meet them. This study further
determined that expansion at MCAGCC
would be necessary to meet the
sustained MEB training requirement for
a three battalion Ground Combat
Element to maneuver to a single
objective. MCAGCC is the Marine Corps’
service-level training facility for Marine
Air Ground Task Force training, the
place through which nearly all Marine
Corps units rotate for training before
deployment.
The Marine Corps is studying various
alternatives to meet MEB training
requirements at MCAGCC Twentynine
Palms, CA. At this time, it is anticipated
that the EIS will evaluate five action
alternatives and the No Action
Alternative. The EIS will also consider
any other reasonable alternatives that
are subsequently identified during
scoping or the preparation of the
document. The Marine Corps will also
evaluate opportunities for co-use of the
land, as part of the evaluation of
alternatives. The following is a
summary of the alternatives that are
currently proposed to be studied in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
Alternative 1 would add
approximately 188,000 acres to the West
of the base and approximately 22,000
acres to the South of the base, and
accompanying Special Use Airspace.
During a MEB training exercise, three
battalions would begin movement in a
westerly direction from different
starting positions in the current
MCAGCC range complex area and
converge on a single objective in the
western part of what is called ‘‘Johnson
Valley,’’ conducting live-fire from
ground- and air-based combat elements
throughout the training exercise. During
non-MEB training periods, any newly
acquired installation lands would be
used for live-fire, combined arms
training and other military training of
smaller units. With regard to any
Special Use Airspace, this alternative
would establish Restricted Airspace
over the Western Area to accommodate
live-fire from aviation and surface units.
Special Use Airspace over the proposed
Southern expansion area would need to
be converted from Military Operational
Airspace to Restricted Airspace.
Alternative 2 would add
approximately 112,000 acres to the West
of the base, the same 22,000 acres to the
South as in Alternative 1, and
accompanying Special Use Airspace.
During a MEB training exercise, three
battalions would begin movement in a
westerly direction from different
starting positions in the current
MCAGCC range complex area and
converge on a single objective in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Oct 29, 2008
Jkt 211001
center of what is called ‘‘Johnson
Valley,’’ conducting live-fire from
ground- and air-based combat elements
throughout the training exercise. During
non-MEB training periods, any newly
acquired installation lands would be
used for live-fire, combined arms
training and other military training of
smaller units. With regard to Special
Use Airspace, this alternative would
establish Restricted Airspace over the
Western Area to accommodate
combined arms live-fire from aircraft in
support of the Ground Combat Element
and would determine whether the
current Special Use Airspace over the
proposed Southern expansion area
would need to be converted from
Military Operational Airspace to
Restricted Airspace.
Alternative 3 would add the same
22,000 acres of land in the South as
would be added in Alternatives 1 and 2
and would add approximately 228,000
acres to the East of the base. During a
MEB training exercise, two battalions
would begin movement from starting
positions to the east of the MCAGCC
current range complex and travel
together in a westerly direction before
separating for individual movement
once aboard the current MCAGCC. The
third battalion would begin movement
in a westerly direction from a starting
position in the southern portion of the
current range complex. All three
battalions would maneuver toward a
single objective in the northwest portion
of the current range complex. The two
battalions that would start in the
proposed new areas to the east would
conduct live-fire from ground- and airbased combat elements once aboard the
current MCAGCC range complex, and
the third battalion would be able to
conduct live fire from ground- and airbased combat elements throughout the
training exercise. During non-MEB
training periods, any newly acquired
installation lands to the east would be
used for live small arms fire and other
military training of smaller units, and
any newly acquired installation lands in
the south would be used for live-fire,
combined arms training and other
military training of smaller units. In this
alternative, it is possible that no
additional Special Use Airspace would
need to be established, or that any
current Special Use Airspace would
need to be modified.
Alternative 4 would add the same
188,000 acres to the west of the current
installation and approximately 22,000
acres to the south of the installation as
are contained in Alternative 1. During a
MEB training exercise, three battalions
would begin movement in an easterly
direction from different starting
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64605
positions in what is called ‘‘Johnson
Valley’’ and assault different objectives
in the eastern portion of the current
range complex and in the proposed
southern expansion area. Live-fire
training in the western expansion area
would be limited to non-dud producing
ordnance, with dud-producing ordnance
only targeted within the current range
boundary. Non-MEB training events
would be subject to the same
restrictions. With respect to Special Use
Airspace, this alternative would
establish Restricted Airspace over the
Western and Southern Areas to
accommodate combined arms live-fire
from aviation and surface units.
Alternative 5 would add the same
188,000 acres of land to the west of the
base as in Alternatives 1 and 4. During
a MEB training exercise, three battalions
would begin movement in an easterly
direction from separate starting
positions in ‘‘Johnson Valley.’’ Two
battalions would attack separate
objectives in the current range complex,
and the third battalion would attack the
Combined Arms Military Operations in
Urban Terrain (CA MOUT) facility in
the current range complex. Live-fire
training in the western expansion area
would be limited to non-dud producing
ordnance, with dud-producing ordnance
only targeted within the current range
boundary. Non-MEB training events
would be subject to the same
restrictions. With respect to Special Use
Airspace, this alternative would
establish Restricted Airspace over the
Western Area to accommodate
combined arms live-fire from aviation
and surface units.
The No Action Alternative would seek
no additional lands and no additional or
changes to Special Use Airspace
associated with MCAGCC’s current
range complex. During a MEB exercise,
the three battalions of the ground
combat element would commence their
operations aboard the current MCAGCC
range complex in the eastern and central
areas of the base, moving towards a
single objective in the northwest corner
of the current MCAGCC, undertaking
live-fire and combined arms actions
throughout, except as restrained by onbase administrative controls.
The Department of the Navy is
initiating the scoping process to identify
community interests and local issues to
be addressed in the EIS. Federal, state
and local agencies, Native American
Indian Tribes and interested individuals
are encouraged to provide oral and/or
written comments regarding the scope
of the EIS to develop reasonable
alternatives and/or to identify specific
issues or topics of environmental
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
64606
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 211 / Thursday, October 30, 2008 / Notices
concern that the commenter believes
should be considered.
The EIS will evaluate potential
environmental effects associated with
action alternatives and the No Action
Alternative. Potential issues include,
but are not limited to: Land use,
recreation, energy development, air
quality, airspace/air traffic, biological
resources, cultural resources, mining/
minerals, socioeconomics and noise.
A mailing list has been assembled to
facilitate preparation of the EIS. Those
on this list will receive notices and
documents related to EIS preparation.
This list includes local, state, and
federal agencies with jurisdiction or
other interests in the alternatives. In
addition, the mailing list includes
adjacent property owners, affected
municipalities, and other interested
parties such as conservation and offhighway vehicle organizations. Anyone
wishing to be added to the mailing list
may request to be added by contacting
the EIS project manager at the address
provided above.
Dated: October 24, 2008.
T.M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate
Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–25845 Filed 10–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official,
Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management, invites
comments on the proposed information
collection requests as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
December 29, 2008.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The IC Clearance
Official, Regulatory Information
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:45 Oct 29, 2008
Jkt 211001
Management Services, Office of
Management, publishes that notice
containing proposed information
collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each
proposed information collection,
grouped by office, contains the
following: (1) Type of review requested,
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of
the collection; (4) Description of the
need for, and proposed use of, the
information; (5) Respondents and
frequency of collection; and (6)
Reporting and/or Recordkeeping
burden. OMB invites public comment.
The Department of Education is
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following issues: (1) Is
this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Department; (2) will
this information be processed and used
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
of burden accurate; (4) how might the
Department enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (5) how might the
Department minimize the burden of this
collection on the respondents, including
through the use of information
technology.
Dated: October 24, 2008.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education
Type of Review: New.
Title: Reading First Expenditure
Study.
Frequency: Annually.
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions; State, Local, or Tribal
Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour
Burden:
Responses: 4,420.
Burden Hours: 13,260.
Abstract: The U.S. Department of
Education Reading First program has no
formal mechanism for grantees to report
on specific uses of grant funds. The
proposed surveys will collect data on
the use and allocation of Reading First
grants from current State educational
agencies (SEA) grantees and their local
educational agencies (LEA) subgrantees.
Collecting such information will help
satisfy the informational needs of key
stakeholders, and inform future grantmaking efforts.
Requests for copies of the proposed
information collection request may be
accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov,
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on
link number 3844. When you access the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
Requests may also be electronically
mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed
to 202–401–0920. Please specify the
complete title of the information
collection when making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or
the collection activity requirements
should be electronically mailed to
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339.
[FR Doc. E8–25894 Filed 10–29–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Assessment Governing
Board; Meeting
Department of Education,
National Assessment Governing Board.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting and
partially closed meetings.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The notice sets forth the
schedule and proposed agenda of a
forthcoming meeting of the National
Assessment Governing Board. This
notice also describes the functions of
the Board. Notice of this meeting is
required under Section 10(a)(2) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. This
document is intended to notify members
of the general public of their
opportunity to attend. Individuals who
will need special accommodations in
order to attend the meeting (i.e.,
interpreting services, assistive listening
devices, materials in alternative format)
should notify Munira Mwalimu at 202–
357–6938 or at
Munira.Mwalimu@ed.gov no later than
November 10, 2008. We will attempt to
meet requests after this date, but cannot
guarantee availability of the requested
accommodation. The meeting site is
accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
DATES: November 20–22, 2008.
Times
November 20
Committee Meetings:
Ad Hoc Committee on NAEP Testing
and Reporting on Students with
Disabilities and English Language
Learners: Open Session—2 p.m. to
4 p.m.
Executive Committee: Open Session—
4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.; Closed
E:\FR\FM\30OCN1.SGM
30OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 211 (Thursday, October 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64604-64606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25845]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Navy
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Acquisition of Lands and Establishment of Airspace
Contiguous to the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine
Palms, CA
AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section (102)(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)), as implemented by the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508),
the Department of the Navy announces its intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to study alternatives for meeting
Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) sustained, combined
arms, live-fire and maneuver training requirements. The proposed action
is to request the withdrawal of federal public lands, acquire state and
privately owned lands, and to seek the establishment of Special Use
Airspace with the effect of expanding the Marine Corps Air Ground
Combat Center (MCAGCC), Twentynine Palms, California. The Department of
the Navy will prepare the EIS in cooperation with the Bureau of Land
Management and Federal Aviation Administration.
DATES: All written, oral, or telephonic comments regarding the scope of
issues that the Department of the Navy should consider during EIS
preparation must be received before January 31, 2009. Three public
scoping meetings have been scheduled and the meeting locations are as
follows:
1. December 3, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Twentynine Palms, CA;
2. December 4, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Victorville, CA;
3. December 5, 2009, 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Ontario, CA.
ADDRESSES: Written comments or requests for inclusion on the EIS
mailing list may be submitted to Project Manager (Attn: Mr. Joseph
Ross), Box 788104, Bldg 1554, Rm 138, MAGTFTC/MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms,
CA 92278-8104. Public meeting locations are as follows:
1. Twentynine Palms Junior High School, Hay's Gym, 5798 Utah Trail,
Twentynine Palms, CA;
2. Hilton Garden Inn Victorville, 12603 Mariposa Road, Victorville,
CA;
3. Convention Center, 2000 E. Convention Center Way, Ontario, CA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Project Manager (Attn: Mr. Joseph
Ross), Box 788104, Bldg 1554, Rm 138, MAGTFTC/MCAGCC, Twentynine Palms,
CA 92278-8104; phone: 760-830-3764; e-mail: SMBPLMSWEBPAO@usmc.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each of the three scoping meetings will
consist of an informal, open house session with information stations
staffed by Marine Corps representatives. Public comment forms will be
available and gathered at the information stations, and a stenographer
will be available to take oral comments for inclusion in the record.
Details of the meeting locations will be announced in local newspapers.
Additional information concerning meeting times and the proposed
alternatives will be available on the EIS Web site located at https://
www.29palms.usmc.mil/las.
The meetings are designed to solicit input from agencies and the
affected public regarding issues or interests that should be studied or
the reasonable alternatives that should be considered for study to meet
Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) sustained, combined
arms, live-fire and maneuver training requirements. The public is
welcome to comment orally or by written comment forms at the meeting;
or, by sending a letter to Mr. Joe Ross, Project Manager, 29Palms
Proposed Training Land/Airspace Acquisition Project, MAGTFTC/MCAGCC,
Bldg 1554, Box 788104, Twentynine Palms, CA 92278-8104; by an e-mail to
SMBPLMSWEBPAO@usmc.mil; or by voice mail at 760-830-3764.
The EIS will consider alternatives for the proposed acquisition of
training land and accompanying Special Use Airspace sufficient to meet
the training requirements for three MEB battalions, as a Ground Combat
Element, and a correspondingly sized Air Combat Element to
simultaneously maneuver for 48-72 hours, using combined-arms and live
fire with their supporting Logistics Combat Element and Command
Element. To meet MEB training requirements which utilize weapons
systems and platforms currently and foreseeable in the Marine Corps
inventory, more contiguous military range land and airspace than is now
available for training anywhere in the United States would be required.
The requirement for MEB training reflects a shift in doctrine that
emerged in the 1990s that placed the MEB as the premier fighting force
that would be deployed to world crises in the foreseeable future. The
Marine Corps studied locations nationwide that might meet the training
requirements and concluded that the Southwest Region
[[Page 64605]]
range complex is the best location to meet them. This study further
determined that expansion at MCAGCC would be necessary to meet the
sustained MEB training requirement for a three battalion Ground Combat
Element to maneuver to a single objective. MCAGCC is the Marine Corps'
service-level training facility for Marine Air Ground Task Force
training, the place through which nearly all Marine Corps units rotate
for training before deployment.
The Marine Corps is studying various alternatives to meet MEB
training requirements at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, CA. At this time, it
is anticipated that the EIS will evaluate five action alternatives and
the No Action Alternative. The EIS will also consider any other
reasonable alternatives that are subsequently identified during scoping
or the preparation of the document. The Marine Corps will also evaluate
opportunities for co-use of the land, as part of the evaluation of
alternatives. The following is a summary of the alternatives that are
currently proposed to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Alternative 1 would add approximately 188,000 acres to the West of
the base and approximately 22,000 acres to the South of the base, and
accompanying Special Use Airspace. During a MEB training exercise,
three battalions would begin movement in a westerly direction from
different starting positions in the current MCAGCC range complex area
and converge on a single objective in the western part of what is
called ``Johnson Valley,'' conducting live-fire from ground- and air-
based combat elements throughout the training exercise. During non-MEB
training periods, any newly acquired installation lands would be used
for live-fire, combined arms training and other military training of
smaller units. With regard to any Special Use Airspace, this
alternative would establish Restricted Airspace over the Western Area
to accommodate live-fire from aviation and surface units. Special Use
Airspace over the proposed Southern expansion area would need to be
converted from Military Operational Airspace to Restricted Airspace.
Alternative 2 would add approximately 112,000 acres to the West of
the base, the same 22,000 acres to the South as in Alternative 1, and
accompanying Special Use Airspace. During a MEB training exercise,
three battalions would begin movement in a westerly direction from
different starting positions in the current MCAGCC range complex area
and converge on a single objective in the center of what is called
``Johnson Valley,'' conducting live-fire from ground- and air-based
combat elements throughout the training exercise. During non-MEB
training periods, any newly acquired installation lands would be used
for live-fire, combined arms training and other military training of
smaller units. With regard to Special Use Airspace, this alternative
would establish Restricted Airspace over the Western Area to
accommodate combined arms live-fire from aircraft in support of the
Ground Combat Element and would determine whether the current Special
Use Airspace over the proposed Southern expansion area would need to be
converted from Military Operational Airspace to Restricted Airspace.
Alternative 3 would add the same 22,000 acres of land in the South
as would be added in Alternatives 1 and 2 and would add approximately
228,000 acres to the East of the base. During a MEB training exercise,
two battalions would begin movement from starting positions to the east
of the MCAGCC current range complex and travel together in a westerly
direction before separating for individual movement once aboard the
current MCAGCC. The third battalion would begin movement in a westerly
direction from a starting position in the southern portion of the
current range complex. All three battalions would maneuver toward a
single objective in the northwest portion of the current range complex.
The two battalions that would start in the proposed new areas to the
east would conduct live-fire from ground- and air-based combat elements
once aboard the current MCAGCC range complex, and the third battalion
would be able to conduct live fire from ground- and air-based combat
elements throughout the training exercise. During non-MEB training
periods, any newly acquired installation lands to the east would be
used for live small arms fire and other military training of smaller
units, and any newly acquired installation lands in the south would be
used for live-fire, combined arms training and other military training
of smaller units. In this alternative, it is possible that no
additional Special Use Airspace would need to be established, or that
any current Special Use Airspace would need to be modified.
Alternative 4 would add the same 188,000 acres to the west of the
current installation and approximately 22,000 acres to the south of the
installation as are contained in Alternative 1. During a MEB training
exercise, three battalions would begin movement in an easterly
direction from different starting positions in what is called ``Johnson
Valley'' and assault different objectives in the eastern portion of the
current range complex and in the proposed southern expansion area.
Live-fire training in the western expansion area would be limited to
non-dud producing ordnance, with dud-producing ordnance only targeted
within the current range boundary. Non-MEB training events would be
subject to the same restrictions. With respect to Special Use Airspace,
this alternative would establish Restricted Airspace over the Western
and Southern Areas to accommodate combined arms live-fire from aviation
and surface units.
Alternative 5 would add the same 188,000 acres of land to the west
of the base as in Alternatives 1 and 4. During a MEB training exercise,
three battalions would begin movement in an easterly direction from
separate starting positions in ``Johnson Valley.'' Two battalions would
attack separate objectives in the current range complex, and the third
battalion would attack the Combined Arms Military Operations in Urban
Terrain (CA MOUT) facility in the current range complex. Live-fire
training in the western expansion area would be limited to non-dud
producing ordnance, with dud-producing ordnance only targeted within
the current range boundary. Non-MEB training events would be subject to
the same restrictions. With respect to Special Use Airspace, this
alternative would establish Restricted Airspace over the Western Area
to accommodate combined arms live-fire from aviation and surface units.
The No Action Alternative would seek no additional lands and no
additional or changes to Special Use Airspace associated with MCAGCC's
current range complex. During a MEB exercise, the three battalions of
the ground combat element would commence their operations aboard the
current MCAGCC range complex in the eastern and central areas of the
base, moving towards a single objective in the northwest corner of the
current MCAGCC, undertaking live-fire and combined arms actions
throughout, except as restrained by on-base administrative controls.
The Department of the Navy is initiating the scoping process to
identify community interests and local issues to be addressed in the
EIS. Federal, state and local agencies, Native American Indian Tribes
and interested individuals are encouraged to provide oral and/or
written comments regarding the scope of the EIS to develop reasonable
alternatives and/or to identify specific issues or topics of
environmental
[[Page 64606]]
concern that the commenter believes should be considered.
The EIS will evaluate potential environmental effects associated
with action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Potential
issues include, but are not limited to: Land use, recreation, energy
development, air quality, airspace/air traffic, biological resources,
cultural resources, mining/minerals, socioeconomics and noise.
A mailing list has been assembled to facilitate preparation of the
EIS. Those on this list will receive notices and documents related to
EIS preparation. This list includes local, state, and federal agencies
with jurisdiction or other interests in the alternatives. In addition,
the mailing list includes adjacent property owners, affected
municipalities, and other interested parties such as conservation and
off-highway vehicle organizations. Anyone wishing to be added to the
mailing list may request to be added by contacting the EIS project
manager at the address provided above.
Dated: October 24, 2008.
T.M. Cruz,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal
Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-25845 Filed 10-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P